JOIN THE LCW
COMMUNITY

Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, quarterly analytics report, curated expert talks, merchandise and much more. Support our work!

Sign up today

Fisher folk protest illegal construction of road on coastal commons for Honnavar Port, Karnataka

Reported by

Nayantara Lakshman

Legal Review by

Anmol Gupta, Mukta Joshi

Edited by

Radhika Chatterjee, Anupa Sagar Kujur

Updated by

Nayantara Lakshman

Published on

February 2, 2023

March 21, 2024

Edited on

March 21, 2024

February 2, 2023

State

Karnataka

Sector

Infrastructure

People Affected by Conflict

2000

Households Affected by Conflict

Land Area Affected (in Hectares)

8

ha

Starting Year

2018

Location of Conflict

Kasarkoda

Tonka

Uttara Kannada

Reason or Cause of Conflict

Port

Land Conflict Summary

In January 2022, members of the fishing community of a coastal village gathered to protest the construction of a road on the beach in Uttara Kannada district, Karnataka. A four lane 4 Kilometre road is being constructed to connect the Honnavar port to National Highway 66. It passes through the beach at Kasarkod Tonka.

The development of the Honnavar port is likely to lead to the loss of local livelihoods and directly affect the health of the community. The construction of the road itself is likely to impact 2000 women of the fisher folk community living in the area. It will also affect the population of Olive Ridley turtles which use the beach as a nesting site.

This road is located in coastal regulation zone III, which is a ‘no development zone’ under India’s coastal regulatory framework. Designated as 'unsurveyed' land is part of the village coastal commons and has been used as a dry fish yard by the local community for generations. The plan for the road construction was not disclosed in the Honnavar port project proposal in its environmental clearance application.

Again, on 24 January 2021, about 60-70 men and women from the community came together to peacefully protest against the construction of the illegal road as part of the port development. During this protest, they were physically assaulted and picked up forcefully by 600 police personnel. Atleast 27 women were detained for the whole day and they had no clarity if any FIR was filed.

In February 2021, Honnavar Port (P) Limited wrote to the Karnataka State Environment Impact Assessment Authority saying that their road under construction was included in their proposal. Citing references from the environment impact assessment report, the letter says the road construction had been discussed in the public hearing for the project.

Community members continued to contest this claim. They filed a petition at the National Green Tribunal(NGT) Ports Department, the Government of Karnataka, and Honnavar Port (P) limited on 9th July 2022. Filed under Damayanti Subray Mesta's name, the petition stated that a mud path used by fishermen without connectivity for 4-km length was misrepresented as ‘kaccha road’. Arguing that the area was a no-development zone (NDZ) as per the coastal regulation rules, the petitioners had demanded cancellation of the project to conserve the Olive Ridley turtles, which nest in the beach.

In July, 2022, the NGT bench heard the matter and passed an order. The order imposed a stay on all further work on the road's construction. It also directed the concerned authorities to consider cancellation of the environmental clearance granted for the port development. In September 2023, however, referred the matter to state environment authorities in view of the expiry of the environment clearance (EC) of the road.

Construction activities continued for a few days even after the stay order was issued. It stopped after the community gave a written complaint to the government.

In a recent development, authorities initiated the construction of a four-lane road to replace the existing dirt road between Kasarkoda and Tonka, leading to an upcoming private port near the National Highway. However, this decision has sparked resistance from the local fishermen community, alleging violations of environmental norms.

On January 31, 204, port authorities, having obtained clearances from the Department of Environment and Forests and the district administration, began surveying the area. Tensions escalated with a clash between fishermen and the police during the survey, resulting in the detention of 18 fishermen, including their leader Rajesh Tandel. The arrests triggered widespread protests, demanding the release of the detainees.

In a letter to the CM, Karavali Karnataka Janabhivriddhi Vedike, an organisation representing the fisher community of Kasarkod, stated that the fishermen were physically assaulted and women were manhandled. They added that detained fishermen were kept in the custody for five days. Stating that the Kasarkod fishing community have been faced harassment and intimidation by the Police Department repeatedly since 2021, the organisation requested the CM to drop all false cases/FIRs after conducting an inquiry.

According to a media report, instead of presenting them at the jurisdictional court, the police took the 18 accused to a court in Kumta. The court sent them to judicial custody. “These fishermen were booked under the non-bailable Section 353 for criminal assault and obstructing public servants from discharging duties among other sections of the IPC and were denied bail,” police sources told the South First.

The fishermen argue that the proposed road would impact around 6,000 people and lead to the demolition of houses under the "Ashraya" scheme. Despite appeals to local representatives, the community sought assistance from NGOs and filed lawsuits against the private port company for alleged violations of National Green Tribunal norms.

A key contention involves the creation of a "kutcha" road during the Covid-19 lockdown in 2021, allegedly by the port company within the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ). Fishermen claim this road traverses through the nesting grounds of Olive Ridley turtles, protected under the Wildlife Protection Act. Environmentalists argue the final Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report did not adequately address the impact on wildlife.

The fishermen and environmentalists have questioned the government's role in potentially redefining CRZ maps to favour the private port company. Meanwhile, Karnataka Fisheries and Ports Minister, Mankal Vaidya, acknowledged legal disputes but emphasized the need for surveys to identify violations.

The community and environmentalists continue their fight against the road construction, alleging environmental and social consequences. The court is set to hear the bail application of the arrested fishermen on February 5.

In the ongoing dispute surrounding the Kasarkoda-Tonka region, significant developments center around the alteration of the high tide line, CRZ discrepancies, and the filing of FIR cases.

High Tide Line Manipulation: Experts allege that authorities attempted to shift the high tide line, crucial for environmental impact assessments. They say that sea walls constructed below the manipulated high tide line in the intertidal region raise concerns about adverse effects on the ecosystem.

CRZ Map Controversy: The CRZ map excludes the village area, possibly designating it as government land, evading clearance requirements. Settlements on private lands are not accurately reflected on the CRZ map, leading to protests from the affected community.

FIR Cases and Legal Challenges: "Around 1,000 fishermen families face legal challenges with FIRs filed against them, when questioning the authorities about the 4-lane road construction," says Prakash Mesta - a marine ecologist and cartographer who served as a member of the Karnataka State Biodiversity Board.

There are close to 15 FIRs now on approximately 150 people in the fishing village. 

The community, remains actively resistant to the proposed port and road construction. The intersection of legal, environmental, and political issues complicates the situation. The alteration of the high tide line, CRZ map discrepancies, and legal battles through FIR filings underscore the multifaceted nature of the Kasarkoda-Tonka controversy. The community strives for comprehensive solutions to safeguard their land, rights, and the delicate environmental balance in the region.

Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand to cancel the project

Demand to retain/protect access to common land/resources

Opposition against environmental degradation

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Common and Private

Type of Common Land

Forest and Non-Forest

What was the action taken by the police?

Detention

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

18

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Awaiting trial

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

Don't know

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

Don't know

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

Yes, they were produced within 24 hours

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Indian Penal Code

Section 353 [offense of assault or criminal force against a public servant]

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)

Status of Project

Project stalled due to protests

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Water bodies, Fishing, Residential area

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Yes

Source/Reference

<https://greentribunal.gov.in/genpdftest.php?filepath=L25ndF9kb2N1bWVudHMvbmd0L2Nhc2Vkb2Mvb3JkZXJzL0NIRU5OQUkvMjAyMi0wOS0xNC9jb3VydHMvMi9kYWlseS8xNjYzMjQwOTQ3ODY3NzM3MDcwNjMyMzBhZjNjY2M3MC5wZGY=>

Total investment involved (in Crores):

99.76

Type of investment:

Cost of Project

Year of Estimation

2019

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

No

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

Legal Data

Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict

Legislations/Policies Involved

Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011
Point III (Areas to be classified as CRZ-III and earmarked as a ‘no development zone’ when it is 200 metres on the landward side of the seafront)
Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006
Schedule (Factors to be considered while granting environment clearance include the distance from areas which are important for ecological reasons, including coastal regions)
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
  1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  2. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  3. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  4. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  5. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  6. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  7. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute

Yes

What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?

What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?

Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:

Violation of environmental laws

Legal Status:

In Court

Status of Case In Court

Pending

Whether any adjudicatory body was approached

Name of the adjudicatory body

Name(s) of the Court(s)

National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone, Chennai

Case Number

Original Application No. 76/2022

Main Reasoning/Decision of court

A petition was filed on July 9, 2022, at the southern bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) against the Ports Department, Government of Karnataka and Honnavar Port Private Ltd (HPPL). The petition challenged the legality of the coastal road as the land involved is classified as CRZ-III and as a ‘No Development Zone’. On July 27, 2022, the Tribunal issued a stay on any construction work. The Tribunal also asked the authorities to consider cancellation of the existing Environmental Clearance already granted. On October 21, 2022, the Tribunal took note of the Karnataka SCZMA’s report. The report stated that CRZ clearance had been issued for specified areas within 44 hectares of land, and no approval for construction of new roads outside of this area had been given. The respondents insisted on seeking permission to develop a kaccha road (road with gravel mixture) which falls within the limits of the Ports Department. However, the Tribunal noted that the final decision on whether this land qualifies as a No Development Zone lies with the SCZMA. HPPL was given liberty to approach the SCZMA with an application. The matter is set to be next heard on February 6, 2023.

Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:

Arrest/detention/imprisonment

Blackmail/threats/intimidation

Physical attack

Whether criminal law was used against protestors:

Yes

Reported Details of the Violation:

Police disrupted peaceful protestors by pushing and jostling them. The protestors were taken to the police station forcibly and detained for 12 hours. During their detention, protestors were intimidated and made to sign a document. Some protestors also reported they suffered injuries. On January 31, 2024, tensions escalated with a clash between fishermen and the police during the survey, resulting in the detention of 18 fishermen, including their leader Rajesh Tandel. According to a media report, instead of presenting them at the jurisdictional court, the police took the 18 accused to a court in Kumta. The court sent them to judicial custody. They were then booked under the non-bailable Section 353 for criminal assault and obstructing public servants from discharging duties and they were denied bail.

Date of Violation

January 30, 2024

Location of Violation

Kasarkod Tonka, Honnavar Taluk, Uttara Kannada, Karnataka

Additional Information

Nature of Protest

Protests/marches

Blockades

Advocacy (for inclusion in courts)

Involvement of national and international NGOs

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Port Development Authority, Forest Department

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Honnavar Port Private Limited

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

No

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Members of the Kasarkod Tonka fishing community

Information on the use of criminal law

What was the action taken by the police?

Detention

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

18

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Awaiting trial

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

Don't know

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

Yes, they were produced within 24 hours

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Indian Penal Code

Section 353 [offense of assault or criminal force against a public servant]

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Resources

Resources Related to Conflict

  • News Articles Related to the Conflict:
  • Documents Related to the Conflict:
  • Links Related to the Conflict:

Images

Community protest against port development activity

Image Credit:  

Nayantara Lakshman

Port being constructed on coastal commons and olive ridley nesting site

Image Credit:  

Nayantara Lakshman

Video

Nayantara Lakshman

In January 2022, members of the fishing community of a coastal village gathered to protest the construction of a road on the beach in Uttara Kannada district, Karnataka. A four lane 4 Kilometre road is being constructed to connect the Honnavar port to National Highway 66. It passes through the beach at Kasarkod Tonka.

The development of the Honnavar port is likely to lead to the loss of local livelihoods and directly affect the health of the community. The construction of the road itself is likely to impact 2000 women of the fisher folk community living in the area. It will also affect the population of Olive Ridley turtles which use the beach as a nesting site.

This road is located in coastal regulation zone III, which is a ‘no development zone’ under India’s coastal regulatory framework. Designated as 'unsurveyed' land is part of the village coastal commons and has been used as a dry fish yard by the local community for generations. The plan for the road construction was not disclosed in the Honnavar port project proposal in its environmental clearance application.

Again, on 24 January 2021, about 60-70 men and women from the community came together to peacefully protest against the construction of the illegal road as part of the port development. During this protest, they were physically assaulted and picked up forcefully by 600 police personnel. Atleast 27 women were detained for the whole day and they had no clarity if any FIR was filed.

In February 2021, Honnavar Port (P) Limited wrote to the Karnataka State Environment Impact Assessment Authority saying that their road under construction was included in their proposal. Citing references from the environment impact assessment report, the letter says the road construction had been discussed in the public hearing for the project.

Community members continued to contest this claim. They filed a petition at the National Green Tribunal(NGT) Ports Department, the Government of Karnataka, and Honnavar Port (P) limited on 9th July 2022. Filed under Damayanti Subray Mesta's name, the petition stated that a mud path used by fishermen without connectivity for 4-km length was misrepresented as ‘kaccha road’. Arguing that the area was a no-development zone (NDZ) as per the coastal regulation rules, the petitioners had demanded cancellation of the project to conserve the Olive Ridley turtles, which nest in the beach.

In July, 2022, the NGT bench heard the matter and passed an order. The order imposed a stay on all further work on the road's construction. It also directed the concerned authorities to consider cancellation of the environmental clearance granted for the port development. In September 2023, however, referred the matter to state environment authorities in view of the expiry of the environment clearance (EC) of the road.

Construction activities continued for a few days even after the stay order was issued. It stopped after the community gave a written complaint to the government.

In a recent development, authorities initiated the construction of a four-lane road to replace the existing dirt road between Kasarkoda and Tonka, leading to an upcoming private port near the National Highway. However, this decision has sparked resistance from the local fishermen community, alleging violations of environmental norms.

On January 31, 204, port authorities, having obtained clearances from the Department of Environment and Forests and the district administration, began surveying the area. Tensions escalated with a clash between fishermen and the police during the survey, resulting in the detention of 18 fishermen, including their leader Rajesh Tandel. The arrests triggered widespread protests, demanding the release of the detainees.

In a letter to the CM, Karavali Karnataka Janabhivriddhi Vedike, an organisation representing the fisher community of Kasarkod, stated that the fishermen were physically assaulted and women were manhandled. They added that detained fishermen were kept in the custody for five days. Stating that the Kasarkod fishing community have been faced harassment and intimidation by the Police Department repeatedly since 2021, the organisation requested the CM to drop all false cases/FIRs after conducting an inquiry.

According to a media report, instead of presenting them at the jurisdictional court, the police took the 18 accused to a court in Kumta. The court sent them to judicial custody. “These fishermen were booked under the non-bailable Section 353 for criminal assault and obstructing public servants from discharging duties among other sections of the IPC and were denied bail,” police sources told the South First.

The fishermen argue that the proposed road would impact around 6,000 people and lead to the demolition of houses under the "Ashraya" scheme. Despite appeals to local representatives, the community sought assistance from NGOs and filed lawsuits against the private port company for alleged violations of National Green Tribunal norms.

A key contention involves the creation of a "kutcha" road during the Covid-19 lockdown in 2021, allegedly by the port company within the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ). Fishermen claim this road traverses through the nesting grounds of Olive Ridley turtles, protected under the Wildlife Protection Act. Environmentalists argue the final Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report did not adequately address the impact on wildlife.

The fishermen and environmentalists have questioned the government's role in potentially redefining CRZ maps to favour the private port company. Meanwhile, Karnataka Fisheries and Ports Minister, Mankal Vaidya, acknowledged legal disputes but emphasized the need for surveys to identify violations.

The community and environmentalists continue their fight against the road construction, alleging environmental and social consequences. The court is set to hear the bail application of the arrested fishermen on February 5.

In the ongoing dispute surrounding the Kasarkoda-Tonka region, significant developments center around the alteration of the high tide line, CRZ discrepancies, and the filing of FIR cases.

High Tide Line Manipulation: Experts allege that authorities attempted to shift the high tide line, crucial for environmental impact assessments. They say that sea walls constructed below the manipulated high tide line in the intertidal region raise concerns about adverse effects on the ecosystem.

CRZ Map Controversy: The CRZ map excludes the village area, possibly designating it as government land, evading clearance requirements. Settlements on private lands are not accurately reflected on the CRZ map, leading to protests from the affected community.

FIR Cases and Legal Challenges: "Around 1,000 fishermen families face legal challenges with FIRs filed against them, when questioning the authorities about the 4-lane road construction," says Prakash Mesta - a marine ecologist and cartographer who served as a member of the Karnataka State Biodiversity Board.

There are close to 15 FIRs now on approximately 150 people in the fishing village. 

The community, remains actively resistant to the proposed port and road construction. The intersection of legal, environmental, and political issues complicates the situation. The alteration of the high tide line, CRZ map discrepancies, and legal battles through FIR filings underscore the multifaceted nature of the Kasarkoda-Tonka controversy. The community strives for comprehensive solutions to safeguard their land, rights, and the delicate environmental balance in the region.

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand to cancel the project

Demand to retain/protect access to common land/resources

Opposition against environmental degradation

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Rural

Type of Land

Common and Private

Type of Common Land

Forest and Non-Forest

Total investment involved (in Crores):

99.76

Type of investment:

Cost of Project

Year of Estimation

2019

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

No

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict

Legislations/Policies Involved

Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011
Point III (Areas to be classified as CRZ-III and earmarked as a ‘no development zone’ when it is 200 metres on the landward side of the seafront)
Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006
Schedule (Factors to be considered while granting environment clearance include the distance from areas which are important for ecological reasons, including coastal regions)
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
  1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  2. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  3. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  4. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  5. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  6. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  7. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute

Yes

What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?

What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?

Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:

Violation of environmental laws

Legal Status:

In Court

Status of Case In Court

Pending

Whether any adjudicatory body was approached

Name of the adjudicatory body

Name(s) of the Court(s)

National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone, Chennai

Case Number

Original Application No. 76/2022

Main Reasoning/Decision of court

A petition was filed on July 9, 2022, at the southern bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) against the Ports Department, Government of Karnataka and Honnavar Port Private Ltd (HPPL). The petition challenged the legality of the coastal road as the land involved is classified as CRZ-III and as a ‘No Development Zone’. On July 27, 2022, the Tribunal issued a stay on any construction work. The Tribunal also asked the authorities to consider cancellation of the existing Environmental Clearance already granted. On October 21, 2022, the Tribunal took note of the Karnataka SCZMA’s report. The report stated that CRZ clearance had been issued for specified areas within 44 hectares of land, and no approval for construction of new roads outside of this area had been given. The respondents insisted on seeking permission to develop a kaccha road (road with gravel mixture) which falls within the limits of the Ports Department. However, the Tribunal noted that the final decision on whether this land qualifies as a No Development Zone lies with the SCZMA. HPPL was given liberty to approach the SCZMA with an application. The matter is set to be next heard on February 6, 2023.

Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:

Arrest/detention/imprisonment

Blackmail/threats/intimidation

Physical attack

Whether criminal law was used against protestors:

Yes

Reported Details of the Violation:

Police disrupted peaceful protestors by pushing and jostling them. The protestors were taken to the police station forcibly and detained for 12 hours. During their detention, protestors were intimidated and made to sign a document. Some protestors also reported they suffered injuries. On January 31, 2024, tensions escalated with a clash between fishermen and the police during the survey, resulting in the detention of 18 fishermen, including their leader Rajesh Tandel. According to a media report, instead of presenting them at the jurisdictional court, the police took the 18 accused to a court in Kumta. The court sent them to judicial custody. They were then booked under the non-bailable Section 353 for criminal assault and obstructing public servants from discharging duties and they were denied bail.

Date of Violation

January 30, 2024

Location of Violation

Kasarkod Tonka, Honnavar Taluk, Uttara Kannada, Karnataka

Nature of Protest

Protests/marches

Blockades

Advocacy (for inclusion in courts)

Involvement of national and international NGOs

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Port Development Authority, Forest Department

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Honnavar Port Private Limited

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Members of the Kasarkod Tonka fishing community

Resources Related to Conflict

  • News Articles Related to the Conflict:
  • Documents Related to the Conflict:
  • Links Related to the Conflict:
Community protest against port development activity

Community protest against port development activity

Image Credit:  

Nayantara Lakshman

Community protest against port development activity

Port being constructed on coastal commons and olive ridley nesting site

Image Credit:  

Nayantara Lakshman

Nayantara Lakshman

Documented By

Text Link

Reviewed By

Text Link

Updated By

Text Link

Edited By

Text LinkLand Conflict Watch

Other Land Conflicts in Karnataka

cross
Not a member yet?
Sign up now